Quote:
Originally Posted by Catfish
But Taiwan is a US thing, geographically? Or Afghanistan?
I always thought it was about political influence.
|
As I repeatedly said, I believe the US is willing to risk a full-scale war with nuclear power China over Taiwan when I see it happening. Until then I take it that they support the claim they will fight as long as the war is in words, not missile barrages exchanged. Since WW2, the US has not willed to get engaged against a military foe on same eye level. In Korea, respect was paid to not push the Chinese too far. In Vietnam, respect was paid to not bomb targets that might trigger full Chinese engagement. Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia were launched in the expectation of them being inferior enemies. The various Middle America expeditions do not even count as full scale wars against major powers.
On Afghanistan, the original thing was Mullah Omar and Bin Laden, and after 9/11 going after Bin Laden, NO MATTER WHAT, was understandable - I would have done the same. Heck I would even have started a war with Russia, if needed - after all it were 3000 of US citizens slain. My problem started when all this nonsense with nation building and
beacon of democracy-talking started. My problem with it continued when I saw over years how surreally and unknowing the war was waged. I rate practically all these wars as tactical victories but strategic defeats.
On such things, I have a very simplistic view: either you do it full and then go all the way, or you do not even start. Shatter the enemy and kill and destroy him with all you have, and if you cannot do that, then do not even bother to get engaged.
"We burnt that forest down."
There is no inbetween. Where this is not understood, stay away from even considering war, no matter for what cause. You would loose.